Incredibly shot. Completely captured rather than the usual SLAVERY IS BAD BUT DON'T WORRY, A WHITE DUDE WILL SAVE EVERYONE the crushing hopelessness and lack of agency of slavery, as well an intriguing and morally murky look at the nature of complicity.

Eljiofor carries the whole film just in his eyes. But Fassbender. JFC. Other worldly terrifying. So easy to overact in a role like that, but it was at once horrifying yet pathetic.

And for all the chat about violence, the most chilling bit was when he made them dance.

I don't think I'll ever be able to watch it again. That last line from Solomon oh jesus :'''''''''(

That was absolutely soul destroying, yet magnificent at the same time.

The thing is people are probably expecting generic Hollywood schmaltz about slavery, but actually it's beautiful yet horrifying examination of a vile institution and the complicity and failings of all involved. No moment left you feeling uncompromised. Frankly, it was absolutely astonishing, for my money a bona fide modern classic

they're going to clean up the trailer because if all the horrific stuff (or at least the suggestion of it) was there then everyone would be turned off. I mean, Brad Pitt's in the trailer and he's so late in the game in the film!

But I think a work of this quality, however difficult will find it's audience, they just need to get that initial rush in.

And more over I think people's expectations are due less to marketing and more to what they have come to expect from a film about slavery (remember Tarantino being criticised because he made a film about slavery and it was violent? Likewise some of the reaction to McQueen) and the nature of the story.

Due to the combination of those two I think people will be expecting the usual award fodder type film, whereas this couldn't be further from it

Sal from Mad Men, the deputy from No Country for Old Men and Omar from the Wire all put in an appearance. Wikipedia just informed me that both Hushpuppy and Wink from Beasts of the Southern Wild are in it as well.

I had to screw up my courage to see it but it's really well done. It is so beautifully shot and dispassionate that the atrocity is even more pronounced. The hanging scene is staggeringly put together. Top marks all round.

I know film awards are all silly things voted for by bizarre groups of people, but it would be a terrible indictment on everything if American Hustle beats it to anything major at the Oscars. Even so, great to see a film like this selling out everywhere, suspect it would have been a much harder sell if it had just been four star reviews across the board.

Incredible. I did expect to feel far more upset than I did but I felt more speechless than anything. Had to go opposite Peckhampkex and have a McDonalds immediately after to console myself but I think that made it worse.

Exceptional film, if incredibly difficult to watch. The last scene, as has been mentioned, is absolutely brutal. *Spoliers* Even though it should be a happy moment- him reunited with his family- the asking for forgiveness and look on his face just took it all out of me.

Chiwetel Ejiofor is absolutely fantastic. Should be nailed on for Best Actor though you never know what they're gonna do. It's rare that they pick first time nominees.

Aside from the subject matter, I also thought the film was beautifully shot. Some of the shots of the cotton fields, plantation houses and willow trees were Terrence Malick-esque.

I would also say don't think it's something that will stand the test of time as a towering modern classic like is being implied.

It's beautifully shot and acted - apart from Brad Pitt's ludicrous cameo. Talk about taking the viewer out of the moment - but to some extent it's more akin to a documentary than a narrative film, in that it's the acts of brutality themselves that are riveting rather than the story or characters which are all rather one-note.

Reminds me of The Passion of the Christ more than anything else. Clearly infinitely better in every respect than that piece of tosh, but in some ways it's more of a curiosity piece than a classic film that'll be rewatched in years to come. This is not a criticism of the film, but perhaps a criticism of the criticism of the film.

I mean, he is the only blemish and it's only a small one so it doesn't really matter but he's been universally panned for his cameo *SPOILER* saving the day *SPOILER* (though without him the film wouldn't have been made)

I hear you about Passion, I made that comparison in my review up there^ I do however think it will stand up

I suppose my argument, such that it is, is only that it falls just short of being a masterpiece by being lacking in some of the key areas that make a really great film.

The characters are fairly one-dimensional and none of them really change or learn, there's no narrative arc but most critically despite the constant brutality, very little tension. Any time they could have created some it gets resolved almost immediately - see the first letter writing scene - he gets given some hope the labourer will help him out, and then 2 or 3 minutes later it's all resolved. Ditto when Amish Brad Pitt says he'll help him - a few minutes later he's getting hauled out of there. Even the title of the film contributes in a small way to remove much of the tension. It feels to me just like one set-piece scene of human suffering shot and scored beautifully, then on to the next. The end.

Really this is simply playing devil's advocate - I loved it anyway. But I didn't think it was perfect by any means - I think some of this could have been added in for more "texture" without losing any of the power it currently has.

it's not a narrative arc, it's a brutal first-hand account of a true story where the characters don't change because they're not characters, they're real people. It's supposed to be a snapshot of a truly awful and ugly period of American history (emphasis on history).

And as a result, I completely disagree about them being one-dimensional, I think the way Fassbender sells Epps is unreal. He is abhorrent, of course he is, but there's still something vaguely human in there which takes a lot of skill to convey when most would have just painted him with no subtlety whatsoever.

I know what you mean about the quick resolves but I don't think that's a problem because they're small parts that add up to a much bigger problem, I.e this man being held captive for 12 years, i.e Slavery at large.

the post below is largely how I feel also, it's a survival story that does an amazing job not to be overly sentimental or preachy, things just happen because that's what the conditions of those lives really seemed to have been like

it is a valid argument, to an extent, i.e what is the role of film and storytelling, I just think given the context and circumstances of this one you can't really approach it in the way you would a more fictionalised one

I don’t want to read it again because it annoyed me enough first time, but much of his criticism seemed to be 12 Years a Slave doesn’t adequately portray the singing, general merriment and shabs/bants of slave life, which is an interesting (some would say deliberately contrarian) critique. I’ll probably trust the source material instead.

I think, in a sense, that one-dimensionality is what makes it great though. There’s no hope, no flashbacks to his family, no lasting relationships, no solidarity in the face of hardship. Just cruel and undignified survival. It’s unrelentingly brutal and any other way of portraying slavery might be dishonest.

The things you mention will certainly stop it from becoming anyone’s favourite film, or even from being a film anyone’s tempted to watch a second time, but I’m not sure they should stop it being considered a classic.

the second time you know where the horror is coming from which means you can just concentrate on what a great film it is generally. It may not be my favourite film per se but it's easily one of the best objectively I've ever seen.

but we'd been joking about the bleakness of the title on the bus on the way to the cinema and when it came to buy tickets my TV fumbled and asked for "two for the slaves one". the woman behind the counter just stared at her.
i said "you've just said that to a person".
becausee she had.
so yeah, very good film.

Brad Pitt literally swoops in like the modern-day time-travelling superhero who funded the project and ruins the illusion that we the viewer are in that time and place which up until that point is maintained really quite staggeringly well.

more that he's a "film star" in a way none of the other cast are, so to see him suddenly airlifted in at the end took me out of the film. It would be the same if Tom Cruise suddenly came staggering in wearing some little circular glasses and a top hat with 10 minutes left.

There's also something inherently funny about the film's producer taking the only heroic role in the film.

But it didn't really seem that much of an issue to me. He doesn't chew through scenery or make a nuisance of himself, he's just there for a bit and then he goes. It's not as if he's Quentin Tarantino dropping N-bombs all over the place. Besides, he funded both Assassination of Jesse James and the Tree of Life too and he was a total dick in both of those.

He's not really much of anything in the Tree of Life, but no-one is because it's a giant pompous mess. While I wouldn't say he matches Clooney or Damon levels of critical underappreciation it's doing him a great disservice to accuse him of being one dimensional.

There's probably a really good 100 minutes of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain actually acting in the Tree of Life. Unfortunately that was cut to about 5 scenes in favour of portentous voiceovers, endless scenery shots and that fucking dinosaur scene.

"I think, in a sense, that one-dimensionality is what makes it great though. There’s no hope, no flashbacks to his family, no lasting relationships, no solidarity in the face of hardship. Just cruel and undignified survival. It’s unrelentingly brutal and any other way of portraying slavery might be dishonest."

I think potentially I'm a bit brainwashed by hollywood conventions, and the need for certain plot / character devices. I did say to my housemate that possibly what makes it brilliant is the lack of strong identifiable relationships..... having said that I found Solomon's relationship with Patsey hard to get my head round. They didn't seem to have a particular closeness, but then she's running after him and calling out as he leaves.

Has his own film blog (permanent plastic helmet), writes for Little White Lies and some other things. Also puts on screenings at the Ritzy and gets involved with BFI events. So in other words, you get to write for BFI by working bloody hard. (Just saying this in case he doesn't come back again)

Thought it was brilliant. The cast are superb, Fassbender is fucking demonic but as someone above said he doesn't go overboard, there's some repulsive restraint there.
Also I don't think anyone's mentioned it but I though Paul Dano was amazing as well, I wanted to run up to the screen and start booting fuck out of it anytime he was on.
Patsey getting the lash, brutal! :(

and I have to say, I found myself leaning more towards some of the more sceptical views above (even accounting for Saint Brad the Emancipator's cameo). I was fully prepared to be devastated, and there were truly incredible, horrific moments, but sometimes, I dunno, I don't think McQueen's style is always the best solution to a story. That dispassionate long take style can occasionally show up the more contrived feeling moments in the script. People have used Malick as a reference point, but Malick's nature shots to me always seem to hum with total emotional engagement and entangle themselves with the characters and the story, whereas here it was so dispassionate that it kind of pulled me away from the central struggle. I also thought the score was a grafted on distraction in the early going. It was like they were trying to impose a few "prestige picture" elements on to a much more restrained whole and that jarred at times. And, if the title didn't have the exact length of time that he was enslaved in it, I wouldn't have been able to tell you what timescale the film covered, which seemed odd as that should have added to the crushing sense of futility.

I'm definitely nitpicking, and it is a very good, important film, but just as a piece of filmmaking, if we were ranking stuff arbitrarily like them Oscars do, I was more impressed with Gravity, or Inside Llewyn Davis, which I watched on the same day. Chiwetel Ejiofor is incredible though, and deserves every award nod he gets.